|
cc6482 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
I'll tell you why it took 12 years to implement these new decisions. Because the NTSB weren't willing to spend loads of money on the devices, especially when they weren't needed. Maybe the recent revival of interest in the Missile Theory had something to do with this. In other words, NTSB wanted to give the appearance they were acting in line with the "official" investigation (which, incidentally, was a joke). Read "The Downing Of Twa Flight 800" by James Sanders for the REAL truth.
Spitfire995 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
twa 800 was shot down
SOPMODM14 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
So they made a device that can stop a missile from downing a civilian airliner? Nope, this device can't stop another TWA 800.
airste172 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
How many times in the past have have aircraft experienced fuel tank explosions??? Flight 800 seems to be the only one that I've ever heard of. I've never even heard of gasoline propelled aircraft spontaneously exploding and gasoline is FAR more explosive than kerosene (jet fuel). Why didn't the NTSB include any eyewitness accounts of the incident in their report? This sounds like smoke and mirrors to me in an effort to cover up something that could prove to be inconvenient for the government.
TECHKLEC (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
Then, the fuel tank will have to be unvented to the atmosphere. As the fuel level goes down during flight, the increasing space in the tank will have to be replenished with inert gas and this sounds like the airliner(s) will have to be retrofitted with an onboard supply.
opopass (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
1-say a boy or grl's name u want 2 b with 2 times.2-say ur best frend's name 5 times.3-post this comment on 5 vids.4-press f8.5-u will c ur crushes name |